• Ethics . . .

    From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 27 16:57:32 2024
    https://thestandard.org.nz/this-is-fine/
    leading to: http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1133.html?query=semenoff

    It seems Chris Bishop is not as concerned about such issues as he once
    was . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Apr 27 07:54:05 2024
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote: >https://thestandard.org.nz/this-is-fine/
    leading to: >http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1133.html?query=semenoff

    It seems Chris Bishop is not as concerned about such issues as he once
    was . . .
    More than you however, by a country mile.
    You are so easily taken in by such sillinesses aren't you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 09:03:54 2024
    On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:57:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    https://thestandard.org.nz/this-is-fine/
    leading to: >http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1133.html?query=semenoff

    It seems Chris Bishop is not as concerned about such issues as he once
    was . . .


    You have posted a comment from Bishop made over 4 years ago. I have
    no doubt that Bishop and a lot of other National MPs would prefer to
    govern without NZF.

    What is your point Rich? Are you inferring that Bishop is
    inconsistent now and if so why?


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 10:54:27 2024
    On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:14:15 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:57:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:

    https://thestandard.org.nz/this-is-fine/
    leading to: >>>http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1133.html?query=semenoff

    It seems Chris Bishop is not as concerned about such issues as he once >>>was . . .


    You have posted a comment from Bishop made over 4 years ago. I have
    no doubt that Bishop and a lot of other National MPs would prefer to
    govern without NZF.

    What is your point Rich? Are you inferring that Bishop is
    inconsistent now and if so why?

    No I don't think Bishop is inconsistent; I am sure he does not like
    the attack on democracy and on the integrity of our democracy that the >Fast-track Approvals Bill represents, but all three of the political
    parties in government are not prepared to recognise that the Emperor
    has No Clothes - they are pretending that an agreement by the three >''leaders'' is binding on the MPs of those parties and on Parliament -
    the reality is that Luxon was rolled by the well researched and
    rehearsed Atlas policies of Seymour, and the reactive well-honed
    skills of Peters who similarly wanted to repay donors to keep his
    dinghy afloat.

    A long sentence that lacks accuracy or rationality. The Fast Track
    Approvals bill clearly has none of the qualities you attribute to it.
    The rest is simply irrelevant posturing based on your unrelenting anti-Government rhetoric.

    The neophyte Luxon did not know what hit him - he
    managed to limit the racist attack on a solemn Treaty contract, but
    probably would not understand the principles set out by Chris Bishop,
    who I am sure is just as appalled by the prospect of Shane Jones
    running amok as he was back in 2020. They can see the train wreck
    coming but by putting those agreements ahead of the countries
    interests, I am sure some of them see the crash coming - probably when
    Peters is asked to hand over being Deputy PM. The old hands like Gerry >Brownlee and Judith Collins are keeping their heads down, knowing
    that when it all blows up they want to be able to avoid the backlash -
    as well all can see the divisive racism; accompanied by the expected >unacceptable behaviour of Shane Jones when they give him sole
    authority to balance ethics against personal interests; are likely to
    blow the coalition apart. Bishops hope can only be that Labour /
    Greens are not ready to be back in government; he too will be looking
    for what happens after Luxon is rolled. Already the divisive nature
    of the government, and their so obviously governing for the wealthy
    white at the expense of the majority is causing significant problems
    for them all.

    While I do not like his policies, Chris Bishop clearly said what felt
    in that post back in 2020; I have no reason to believe he has lost the >aversion to unethical behaviour demonstrated by him at that time.

    You are moving from irrational to delusional with posts like this
    Rich. The Government is simply doing what it said it would.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 10:14:15 2024
    On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:03:54 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:57:32 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    https://thestandard.org.nz/this-is-fine/
    leading to: >>http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZHC/2019/1133.html?query=semenoff

    It seems Chris Bishop is not as concerned about such issues as he once
    was . . .


    You have posted a comment from Bishop made over 4 years ago. I have
    no doubt that Bishop and a lot of other National MPs would prefer to
    govern without NZF.

    What is your point Rich? Are you inferring that Bishop is
    inconsistent now and if so why?

    No I don't think Bishop is inconsistent; I am sure he does not like
    the attack on democracy and on the integrity of our democracy that the Fast-track Approvals Bill represents, but all three of the political
    parties in government are not prepared to recognise that the Emperor
    has No Clothes - they are pretending that an agreement by the three
    ''leaders'' is binding on the MPs of those parties and on Parliament -
    the reality is that Luxon was rolled by the well researched and
    rehearsed Atlas policies of Seymour, and the reactive well-honed
    skills of Peters who similarly wanted to repay donors to keep his
    dinghy afloat. The neophyte Luxon did not know what hit him - he
    managed to limit the racist attack on a solemn Treaty contract, but
    probably would not understand the principles set out by Chris Bishop,
    who I am sure is just as appalled by the prospect of Shane Jones
    running amok as he was back in 2020. They can see the train wreck
    coming but by putting those agreements ahead of the countries
    interests, I am sure some of them see the crash coming - probably when
    Peters is asked to hand over being Deputy PM. The old hands like Gerry
    Brownlee and Judith Collins are keeping their heads down, knowing
    that when it all blows up they want to be able to avoid the backlash -
    as well all can see the divisive racism; accompanied by the expected unacceptable behaviour of Shane Jones when they give him sole
    authority to balance ethics against personal interests; are likely to
    blow the coalition apart. Bishops hope can only be that Labour /
    Greens are not ready to be back in government; he too will be looking
    for what happens after Luxon is rolled. Already the divisive nature
    of the government, and their so obviously governing for the wealthy
    white at the expense of the majority is causing significant problems
    for them all.

    While I do not like his policies, Chris Bishop clearly said what felt
    in that post back in 2020; I have no reason to believe he has lost the
    aversion to unethical behaviour demonstrated by him at that time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)